Rumi - Again

So I'm doing a Beachbody yoga video and it's feeling a bit New-Agey but I'm trucking along trying to push past what my brain is telling me and in pops a "I read this great quote from Rumi" statement from the teacher and my interest in the video just vanishes. Quoting Rumi is fine and all but when it is done in the context of a Beachbody yoga class my awareness of the fact this is quoted out of any context - or, more realistically, within the context of what is in fact a luxury and outside of the original context of Rumi - I become irked. 

Working on it as this is my ego flaring up. Why can't I just let it go? People have been quoting things out of context for centuries. Some might argue the Bible quotes things from elsewhere and re-contextualizes them so who am I to say? Fair point.

My wife and I were watching a 'Christian' marriage videos and in pops a quote from H.P. Lovecraft. Seriously? They provide no context for the quote and just throw it in there. Perhaps behind the scenes they are fully aware of this quote's use and it was intentional but I'm not sure Lovecraft is exactly a purveyor of the views being espoused in the videos and I'm pretty sure that his views on race disqualify him as someone 

If there's one thing that drives me crazy it's authors and videos that just pull quotes at random to support views where in reality the quotes are often decontextualized or actually conflict (within context) with the overall views attempting to be supported.

I'm not saying not to read Lovecraft or not to watch such videos should a random quote appear, not at all. I'm saying that we must be wise and know our sources. 

Quotes Out Of Context

Is it me or is this a horrible thing?

When quotes are taken out of context far too often they are stripped of their meaning and re-contextualized in the context of ME, perhaps the true religion of the world and thus the true cause of all 'religious' wars.

I recently tried taking a marriage counseling course and on about slide three appears a quote from H.P. Lovecraft. Lovecraft is fine when taken in context but after emailing the team behind these videos I learned exactly what I feared: they had no idea who he was and chose his words based on their meaning in the context of their videos. Doesn't matter that he was an atheist and, more significantly, 'nativist' (i.e. racist) and that my wife and I are a mixed couple.

When I emailed him about this the response I got beyond was 'I don't know who he is' was 'I can't guarantee this won't happen again so you're probably better served elsewhere.' Disappointing from a Ph. D. I supposed I was hoping for some kind of dialogue, perhaps a deeper probe into why this was so upsetting, but I got the boot. Reinforced exactly what it was that trouble me about the use of the quote and the fact that this happens all the time.

Self-help gurus do it all the time, take a hodgepodge of quotes from wherever it is that suits their purpose and frame it around their own ideology that making a religion of ME. I think it is the fact there is no center of truth in this approach; this is how people find themselves enslaved in a cult led by a charismatic leader. That person becomes the center of truth through which everything is filtered. 

It is a shortcut and is the same thing far too many do with the Bible and other holy texts. I will fit the meaning, whatever it is (don't care, really) to fit what I'm trying to say whether or not it's right and I'm assuming that just referring to said author of the quote will have power enough to meaning something. Thump.

I've written about Rumi being Americanized before and stumbled across a similar article from The New Yorker:

The Erasure of Islam from the Poetry of Rumi

May as well just chuck the Bible and quote Hollywood or rock music and call it church.

The Web Of The Web

I often will start browsing the Web for one reason or other and it does not take me long to go down the rabbit hole of 'conspiracy theories' and sites where someone states as "the" truth what the vast majority are missing. Oftentimes, these sites are 'religious' or 'spiritual' in nature. I always start to read them, unless the graphics are bad or loud (for some reason, these sites always have terrible graphics), but it does not take me long to realize that the overly combative or self-assured nature of them cause my eyes to cross and my interest to rapidly wane. 

Irony, I suppose, as I am on the Web and quite possibly doing the same thing. I try and retain my sense of wonder and willingness to learn rather than holding fast to holding "the" truth, other than within my own understanding, that no one else has. It is for my gain, to make myself better, so that I in turn may try and make the lives of others just a little better.  

Freedom of speech, absolutely, yet freedom also to reject the same. 

The tolerant must be tolerant of the intolerant or they expose the deception of use of the idea of 'tolerant' as it is glamorized and glorified as a cardinal virtue.

Oneness Theology

Finally realized that Oneness theology teaches there was no "Son of God" prior to the Incarnation. There is no "Second Person" in the Godhead. There is the Father. Period. And the Spirit in some way, shape or form. If the "Son of God" existed it was in the mind of God.

I used to think that about John 8:58 though I still don't think he is saying "I am God" in that statement. None of the early Church Fathers seems to have thought that; that is a result of our 'scientific' and 'literal' approach to Scripture, specifically the KJV. The early Church Fathers believed it was a claim about pre-existence.

Just putting that out there...

The Nicene Creed

How is it that I am 49 years old and do not know the Nicene Creed? I'm sure I said it as a kid but not since that time. In my search through various faith traditions, from no religion to "eastern" religion to Oneness Pentecostalism to Islam to the non-denominational variety, I am now gravitating toward the "Eastern Orthodox" tradition, at least through books and study of the Word.

Will I make the leap? Hank Hanegraaf's leap really caused me to pause as I would imagine he found the same thing I am discovering. It seems for the studious ones there is a sort of homecoming, a tradition that embraces, not shuns, things of the intellect and, paradoxically, through it opens up a deeper mystery.

So I have found myself immersed in the Nicene Creed, not as rote memorization but as having come in to it as the Fathers must have done back in the day as it evolved from their experience. From the study of the Word and its inherent mystery I have come to discover the Trinity as 'experiential' and from this have come to the Creed from the inside, if you will. 

My studies have opened up to the Trinity, to the Incarnation, to the Nicene Creed and, in reverse, the Scriptures are much more clear, at least through that filter. Sure we can debate the Scriptures and Tradition and I'm sure this will never end. But I've found a relative level of peace in where I stand that has, again, opened up the Mystery.

My struggle has been not merely "finding" what I believe but uncovering it. It has always been there underneath the accretions over the years and it feels like it is finally being brought to light, i.e. to my understanding. I am finally finding a way to give voice to what it is that I believe. And it must be this that Paul talks about:

"For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:16)"

I cannot help but quote the Scriptures. What I am trying to say has already been said. However, it is only because I have come to the point where I have walked into the text. The seed, the Word, has been planted but it is really only over time that those words take root and grow and have a life of their own and our experiences and the reflections from the world around us mirror the reality of what it is the Word expresses.

It is at once ecstatic but also filled with a certain sense of madness, as if it all makes sense all at once yet makes no sense at all. Similar to my experience on Yosemite, this is an awakening, a deepening, an enlarging of my being. It is what all of these readings talk about, the being 'open' to participation in the divine. The Trinity takes us "into" the mystery.

PSA

Just putting some more notes out there as I try to 'congeal' this into something that resembles my understanding.

So the idea of 'penal' substitution is inherent within the Scriptures. However, is the term 'penal' based on our understanding based on our culture, our upbringing, our worldview? Or are we conforming to the idea as laid out in the text?

When I hear the term 'penal' I think 'deserved it'. "Jesus got what we deserve." The problem with this, as I see it anyhow, is that the focus is still us, as if God's sole focus is to get us, to give us what we deserve? I can't shake that and it clouds my idea of how a 'loving' (of course, my understanding of what that means) God could be so, well, vindictive.

I understand that from a law point of view, the punishment would fit the crime of sin = death. But isn't that punishment enough? We sin, we die. What if there is more to this than that? 

Did Jesus come to conquer sin or conquer death? After all, if He defeated death is sin not vanquished? In other words, if He came to conquer the 'sin' problem wouldn't death still be unresolved? He made us 'righteous' with God but then there is still the death thing. Without the resurrection, death still remains an issue.

Where am I going with this? I was talking to someone about this and the response to Jesus sacrifice was this: I deserved it, He took on my punishment and I owe Him my life because of it. While I do not disagree with this necessarily there is something missing. Or maybe it is just that simple and I need to chill.

But it sounds like a mere swap, a straight legal transaction, balancing the equation. And I believe this is the claim often leveled against PSA in its basic, or base, understanding. 

The questions, for me, still remain: paid the price. To whom? Ransom. From what? Bore my infirmities. And did what with them?

Random Notes

Jesus. Do we create Him? Yes. In us. The question, though, is whether or not there is an objective, or at least unified, reality behind this creation. We bring our humanity to Him, to this 'image' of Him and through 'Him' to the Father. But are we taking what is already within us and projecting it, if you will, onto this Jesus, creating an image? I think that's always a risk. The question is what is projected back to us, as in a mirror. Is there anything there? 

Or is it all just wishful thinking, a creation of our own making, a group delusion and manifestation, the power of the crowd to manufacture a mythology that is therefore able to be taught back to a group? Or is the fact of its existence a sign that it is in fact independent of us, something to discover, something already present that we, in a sense, stumble across? Is it truly something that is revealed to us? This requires humility, continually, to lay it down and surrender, 'sacrifice', it before Him. It is through Him we find out who we are as He infuses our humanity with His deified Humanity. 

My life is not that extraordinary. There is nothing shocking about it, nothing radical, nothing ridiculous, nothing extreme. What is perhaps most extraordinary is how ordinary it is. I think I spent most of my youth trying to create something extraordinary, an expression of self-identity, a rebelliousness, a protective sheath around my wounded youth. But it was a reaction out of pain out of uncertainty out of hurt rather than a true assertion of self-identity based on a Clear Vision. 

The Word, creator of all, is present in everything, including intimations within all religious traditions, all music and all expressions from the soul. It is this 'voice' that wishes to burst forth and we are its instrument. Nature and creation all 'sing' but it is from within and through our humanity that this 'voice' is most true. Theology is not a bad word. Dissociate theology from religion. Passage about Trinity as a hedge and other similar verses about theology as a bridge. Thinker? Always questioning? God. Word. Father. Son. Spirit. Jesus. Lord. Trinity. Apophatic approach. Comfortable enough to listen, not to debate to win or be right. To allow others the room to explore on their own, to question. 

Bad or confusing/ambiguous theology in worship songs. Theology is not a bad word and is, in fact, where the mind naturally gravitates to when contemplating the mystery of God. The church has, in its history, paved the way toward answering any and all questions we may have. 

There is nothing new under the sun. It may be new to us but the church protects us from thinking we are unique in the course of history which can, in its worst manifestation, lead to a cult-like dictatorship and following.

Christ - Oneness vs. Trinity

Sorry for the mad ramblings (and over generalizations) on this one, hashing out some of the deeper theology related to the 'person' of Christ. Deep into the Orthodox tradition reading the Church Fathers on the subject as well as more modern theologians such as Dumitru Staniloae and John Meyendorff. When reading the scholars of the Oneness tradition they pale in comparison to the deeper things of the Church.  Rather than entering the mystery, I have found that far too often they enter debate. 'Tradition' does not mean stale liturgy and high theological treatises, the teaching of men over the inspiration of the Spirit.

Even non-denominational churches and churches such as Oneness Pentecostals, though rooted firmly in the Bible, have 'traditions' which ultimately develop and rituals which are built around them. Wherever people are gathered there will be traditions and rituals.

Oneness theologians are strictly Bible only in their theology. While for some this may be seen as a weakness, for them it is a source of pride. As I spent many years in a Oneness church I learned, over time, the Bible only was not enough. Much of their theology came from either the pastor (or Bishop) or from 'inspiration' from the Holy Spirit. There were a lot of verbal and mental gymnastics required to make the theology stick. For as 'literal' as they claimed to be it was quite a leap to make the 'literal' meaning of the text say what it was they wanted it to say.

So as I progress on this journey, I am learning that the "Trinity", while certainly theologically dense and complex, once absorbed, becomes more readily experiential and provides a space through which the words of the Scripture enter and resonate more deeply. With the brain more settled I more easily enter the 'stream' toward the Divine.

"Nevertheless, Jesus' "I" - the ultimate subject - was not a human person, but the divine Logos, Second Person of the Trinity. It is not an expression or a manifestation of "natural" - divine, or created - existence, because the created, human existence of Jesus did not express itself in a human hypostasis, but rather in a divine one. It was assumed by the Son of God without ceasing to be fully human."

Oneness theology does not believe in a 'Son' prior to the Incarnation. The 'Son' had a beginning and that beginning was as a human being. God the Son has no meaning and is not revealed in Scripture. Through His humanity He has revealed Himself to be 'Jesus' and this name therefore is the name of God, i.e. the 'name' of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. No pre-existent Son, no Spirit as a third 'person' in the Godhead.

I get it. Kind of. Where I'm stuck is on the 'humanity' of Jesus. I tend to think of him as a 'person' in the sense of a specific, human identity. To say he 'assumed' this identity leads to a pre-existing human 'person' which he took over. That is not really an incarnation because it applies to a person, to a "man" in the sense of "us", already there for him to assume. 

However, when we try and contemplate what, exactly, was birthed in Mary we enter the mystery. What, or who, was that 'person' which was given flesh by the Holy Spirit? With no genealogy from mortal parents, what does it mean to say he was born as a human being? What is a human being? 

And, once we figure this out, can we see clearly which of the two theologies is real? Or are they both real and just a matter of how we look at it?

So, stepping back. What is our true nature? What did Christ 'become'? And if the divine Logos became a human being, what does that mean? As we are not the divine Logos what are we in essence?

If God the Son, i.e. the Logos, assumed human nature and yet remained the divine subject of this assumed nature, who are we? Are we too 'assuming' or borrowing or 'putting on' flesh as well?  Is it the human nature itself that is corrupt? Is 'sin' in this sense rooted in that very nature?

If this is the case is sin something external to our 'who-ness' and we simply give credence to this nature by our choices? And, going a step further, 'who' is doing the choosing? Who is the 'I' that is making the choice to bow to our tendency in our nature?

But if Jesus assumed this nature yet without sin, sin is not something fundamentally present within human nature. It is either external or it is directly connected to our 'persons' (i.e. the 'I'). It is not us; it is not human nature. What, then, is it?

Oneness doctrine does not believe in God the Son. The fullness of the divine then 'assumed' (do they say 'assumed'?) or 'became' flesh. The divine and the human were one in Jesus. But how? So God was God in heaven and Jesus was God on earth though in a human body (or being).

So even Oneness believers struggle with the explanation/understanding of what it means to say that God was in Christ, i.e. the dual nature. Trinitarians explain that it was the Second Person of the Trinity who assumed a body; Oneness believers believe - how seems not be understood - that the fullness of Deity took residence in Christ. Was his 'flesh' assumed? Was human nature 'assumed'? What does it mean when they say he was 'manifest' as a man?

But Do I Believe?

In all this pursuit of getting knowledge the question hit me: do I believe it?

Or am I just fascinated, thrilled and intoxicated by the fact that I understand?

Festal Orations (Cont.)

"Let us become like Christ, since Christ also became like us; let us become gods because of him, since he also became human. He assumed what is worse that he might give that which is better. He became poor that we through his poverty might become rich. He took the form of a slave, that we might regain freedom. He descended that we might be lifted up, he was tempted that we might be victorious, he was dishonored to glorify us, he died to save us, he ascended to draw to himself us who lay below in the Fall of sin. Let us give everything, offer everything, to the one who gave himself as a ransom and an exchange for us. But one can give nothing comparable to oneself, understanding the mystery and becoming because of him everything that he became because of us." (Oration 1.5: On Pascha and on His Slowness)

Compare this.

Perhaps it just makes me old. I'm good with that.

I find it fascinating that what I lived through in the 90s with electronic music bubbling up from the underground is now totally and completely mainstream and it has made its inroads into the church. For folks in church this is a "new" feeling; for those of us that have been there it is old school. Retro, brings a smile of times past, but is not something that I care to relive in the context of church, somehow 'sanctifying' it and giving it a Christian stamp.

This isn't to say these are bad or somehow inherently "wrong" as quite often the songs are quite enjoyable. They've got a good beat, a catchy hook and feel good lyrics. However, these songs come and go as time rolls on. I've got good memories of church songs that were popular five even ten years ago and they have no current relevance, a time capsule and snapshot of where I was at that point in my journey. 

I am moving deeper in my walk and prefer something with more substance, something that speaks deeper into the nature of this walk and something that resonates in the very core of my being rather than tickling my emotions and giving me a slight buzz.   

Festal Orations - Saint Gregory Of Nazianzus

For those who don't know me well, for me to be immersing myself fully into more "traditional" Christian literature is nothing short of a miracle. I've never been one to take anything as a given and have always sought to challenge beliefs, my own as well as the beliefs of others. 

I've always pursued my own interests in music, movies, adventures, people. Call it the "what else is out there" syndrome. Much of it had to do with my formative years of rebellion where I was defined not by what I believed, as such, but by what I was against. I was against most anything that appeared traditional, rote, expected. 

Yet here I am, years later, finally pursuing not rebellion (though the questioning spirit remains) but what it is I believe. I question not to tear down; I question to understand. My questions are more focused, my interest in "everything else" has quieted down and the focus becomes more singular. 

Which leads me, at this juncture, immersed in a series of books from the St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, most recently (today) Saint Gregory's Festal Orations. I was led here, as with many of these, through The Roots Of Christian Mysticism. Troubled by the 'common' understanding of the atonement - I am a worthless hell deserving sinner who deserves to die so Jesus took on what I had coming to appease a pissed off Father - I began to read up on the various 'theories' of the atonement, of which there are many.

There is no singular theory. It is, as far as a I can ascertain, something that has happened as cultures change, and the theology within it, over time. Many books have been written on the subject and I simply do not know the material well enough to present it other than point out a few books which have been especially beneficial in guiding my understanding to a larger fullness.

But it was this that caught my eye:

"Why was the blood that was shed for us, God's most precious and glorious blood, the blood of the Sacrificer and the Sacrifice, what was it poured out, and to whom was it offered?...If it was a ransom offered to the Father, the question arises, for what reason? It was not the Father that held us captive...

It is not evident that the Father accepts the sacrifice, not because he demands it or feels some need for it..." (p.44-45)

A resounding yes.

On a side note, apparently I am potentially an apostate:

On The Necessity Of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Anyhow, I sought the original from whence the words above came and was led to Festal Orations. Here is the full text from which it came:

"Now then, we will examine an issue and doctrine overlooked by many but in my view very much to be examined. To whom was the blood poured out for us, and why was it poured out, that great and renowned blood of God, who is both high priest and victim?

For we were held in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and received pleasure in exchange for evil. But if the ransom is not given to anyone except the one holding us in bondage, I ask to whom this was paid, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, what an outrage! For the robber would receive not only a ransom from God, but God himself as a ransom and a reward so greatly surpassing his own tyranny that for its sake he would rightly have spared us altogether.

But if was give to the Father, in the first place how? For we were not conquered by him. And secondly, on what principle would the blood of the Only-begotten delight the Father, who would not receive Isaac when he was offered by his father but switched the sacrifice, giving a ram in place of the reason-endowed victim?

It is clear that the Father accepts him, though he neither asked for this nor needed it, because of the divine plan, and because the human being must be sanctified by the humanity of God, that God might himself set us free and conquer the tyrant by force and lead us back to himself by the mediation of the Son, who also planned this to the honor of the Father, to whom it is manifest that he yields all things.

This much we have said of Christ, and the greater part will be revered in silence." (Festal Orations, 45.22)

We - and I am as guilty of this as anybody - go too far sometimes in our explanations and make idols of them, oftentimes becoming as or more dogmatic than those we have accused of the same. I prefer the mystery and I prefer to allow God to be God without imposing my will on Him. The mystery yields more than could a million textbooks on theology; these serve a purpose but only as a guide, a gate, into the mystery.

The Dao. Again.

"The deeper you go, the deeper you go." (my translation)

Septuagint - Random Thoughts And Questions

I am reading the Septuagint in a year and am thoroughly enjoying it as it is opening up my eyes. In trying to explain it to my wife this morning I realized that I do not know the history and significance of it well enough to, as Richard Feynman is quoted as having said, "prepare a freshman lecture on it."

That being said it does open up a line of questioning worth pursuing. I'm sure the answers, or opinions anyhow, are out there.

If NT writer(s) wrote in Greek and the quotes as we have them match the LXX, did they quote from the same? Did Jesus speak in Greek? Did Jesus use the LXX or did the writers of the NT put those words into His mouth from the LXX?

In other words, did He speak Hebrew? If He did and use a Bible written in Hebrew, how is it that the quotes in the NT attributed to Him match the LXX? Was the LXX redacted or edited at some point by Christians to match what the Gospels say He said? 

Or did He speak Aramaic as many believe? Did He understand Latin a la going before Pilate? Or did Pilate know Hebrew? Or Aramaic? Or even Greek? Or is there an implied translator in the story?

If the original Gospels, or at least the oral stories underlying them, were written in Hebrew, at what point did they 'become' Greek? Did the original authors actually write in Hebrew and do the translating into Greek? Or did someone translate or write them in the Greek language and draw from the LXX when so doing?

These are all questions for which there are no easy answers and there may never be a definitive answer and it ultimately comes down to a reasoned, or unreasoned, belief.

The bigger question is how it impact one's faith. Protestants, especially of the more fundamentalist, especially from the King James Only camp, often accuse Catholic and Orthodox churches of 'needing' them for their doctrines. Catholic and Orthodox will (most likely, I am imaginging; I am deficient in this depth of knowledge) claim these go back to the origins of the Church.

Also a significant factor is the paradox that those who created the Creeds, the foundational elements of the faith that sustained it for thousands of years, were the Church Fathers and their "Old Testament" text was the Septuagint. The classic texts from Athanasius, Basil and the Gregories quote from it. Wisdom, absent from Protestant Bibles, also played a significant role in their understanding.

Which of course heads into the Sola Scriptura debate and the role of the Creeds in contrast to it. Do we chuck the creeds? Are they subservient to sola scriptura and, if so, does our understanding of the Bible today somehow render them different or otherwise contrary? Do we believe the creeds to be too 'Catholic' and the freedom of the 'Spirit' means we only pay lip service to them?

After all, the Church Fathers developed these creeds not on their own volition but with Scripture backing them. We may debate the interpretation (and the influence of the Septuagint may play a part in this) but we cannot just discard the creeds. It is a bit presumptuous to do this as it leads to the further questions of whether or not the Church would have survived, or become Arian or some other doctrine, without them.

In this day and age when anything deemed absolute is considered dogmatic and intolerant have we resorted to a Church in which it is up to the individual to determine what is and is not the faith? This goes a long way toward explaining why so many churches claim little to no allegiance to a denomination and far too often rise and fall on the founder of the church.

It's All About You...

If it's all about Jesus, as the worship song says, what does that even mean? Does that mean we worship Jesus along as God? What of the Father? The Spirit? Is Jesus the Father, the Son and the Spirit? 

I can't quite put a finger on it but there is something 'missing' in a song such as this. Jesus is the focus, certainly, but the "all" we are to focus on? I'm not convinced that is the point of the Biblical revelation. Granted, it is a worship song and not a theological treatise and we could make the case that the 'all' being sung is really a reference to Jesus as the pivot, the focal point through Whom we enter into the worship of the Father, Son and Spirit.

Is Jesus the pre-existent Son? Or is that the Word speaking in and through, even as, Jesus? These questions matter for without clarity of understanding we know not what we worship and risk being moved by feelings, by emotions, by every wind of doctrine. 

It to me that as long as we are a people who use our minds, who reason, who question, who seek knowledge, we will find our way into theology. Rather than shun it we should embrace it because in the pursuit of understanding we may just find that we build a firm foundation even when it becomes more and more mysterious the more we know.

I've traveled the path of subordinationist theology from Irenaeus to Origen and the bifurcation of his thought via Arius and Athanasius and its apparent revival in evangelical circles. This tells me that the evangelical church has lots its historical moorings and is on the path of discovery; the danger is that in so doing they are thinking that somehow this is fresh terrain and a sign of the Holy Spirit working something objectively new.

Also covered some Christomonist/Christocentric theology and its connection to the Trinity. The danger here is that these becomes two 'poles' of thought (i.e. Trinity vs. Jesus) rather than understanding Jesus' role in taking us 'beyond Jesus' and into the perichoresis of the Trinity.

We cannot see God in His essence; but we see Jesus.

I am thoroughly fascinated, intoxicated, by this pursuit of trying to know but what has changed is that my life is not on hold until I know. In fact, it is the intertwining of life with this pursuit of knowledge that fuels one another. To be a true contemplative can be just as dangerous as living without knowledge.

Hide and seek, lost and found, the three in one, the yin and yang. Intoxicating, Maddening. But nothing else matters in the end. 

On The Incarnation (Cont)

So how did I end up at On The Incarnation? To some extent I got tired for the 'instant salvation' based on the 'I am a worthless sinner in need of hell' as the call.  While there may be truth in this it is ultimately a formula extracted to its essence which, like modern medicine, focuses so strongly on one disease that it leads to a need for more medication(s) to treat the symptoms caused by the singular extraction.

In other words, it is not an organic whole and as such is sorely lacking.

The "penal substitution" focus, that Jesus bore God's wrath, made God sound like a pissed off dictator who can't control His people. I failed to see the love of God in the way this was presented.

Accept Jesus or burn in Hell where a pissed off God will leave you in the hand of a co-equal though subservient Devil who will torture you for eternity. What kind of theology is that? 

Athanasius' work was omnipresent throughout the readings of Clement and Lossky but it was the moment I read this statement when trying to understanding what the Atonement meant, with the anti-penal substitution view lurking in the background:

"Why was the blood that was shed for us...poured out...and to whom was it offered?...It was not the Father that held us captive." (Clement, p. 45)

I began to enter the mystery as mystery and not as a problem to solve. As opposed to my approach toward theology up to this point, that need to know concretely, I began to accept that there is a greater mystery toward which we are drawn. Never one to believe just to believe or believe because someone says I should or tells me what is expected, I come to this on my own volition.

The more I focus on the mystery, the less important do things "worldly" come to occupy my time.  This is not a dualist anti-world view, not at all. Things "worldly" are nothing more than things that have not been imbued with the power of the resurrection, that "flame" which re-creates things anew and refines them to their purest essence revealing the illusion previously held as idolatrous.

On The Incarnation

I work in the quality field professionally so 'root cause analysis' is a huge part of what I do. I'm also a systemic, process oriented thinker, something I have only really discovered by being in te quality field. This is not something that others naturally gravitate toward so it makes me something of an oddball in the way I look at things. This includes things religious, including theology. Just don't do 'root cause analysis' when you're spouse wants to go to the hospital or you may get a response such as this one: 'you hate me and want me to die.' Root cause solved.

In my resistance to, repulsion of, frustration with and, ultimately, gravitation toward the Trinity I have found my way back to the Church Fathers. I have been headed down this path for quite some time after having picked up Olivier Clement's The Roots Of Christian Mysticism and Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology Of The Eastern Church. These books crossed my path years ago after going through one of the periodic, though more frequent, frustrations with the modern "evangelical" church in America. Though certainly more my style than the Pentecostal Oneness church in which I entered the stream, something was missing.

As strange as it may sound, there was too much focus on Jesus. Don't get me wrong. It's His Church. I fully understand that. But the Christocentric view started as it still often does to feel like the Oneness church doctrine I just left. "It's all about you Jesus" started to feel like bad theology. Or maybe the church I left was right.

I left that church due to the cult of the leader and the fact that it became ritualistic and predictable even in the midst of 'spontaneous' praise and worship. Something was missing. So we stumbled across a non-denominational church which exuded love. Not the Disneyfied version but something tangible, something real that I did not know could be found in and through church. It changed everything. Weirded me out at first but I began to understand that life is about relationship and life is about others. I am still trying to live out this lesson.

A change in leadership led to us leaving that church as well as it headed back in the direction of legalism and there was criticism of the previous leadership as overly permissive. We called it freedom and could not walk back from that.

We ultimately ended up at a church I had attended roughly ten years prior for one single Bible study with an ex-girlfriend. After going weeks without attending any church one morning it dropped into my head (spirit?) to visit. We walked in and were home and have been there for at least fifteen years now.

However, as someone who is always questioning, never satisfied with being static in my pursuit of the infinite, fissures began to appear. It is mostly mental, though it could also be a rebellious spirit within me. Mostly it was the 'if I hear one more Chris Tomlin song I'm going to scream' variety. The theology in many worship songs is bad. I can't say it is 'wrong' as such but it is certainly fuzzy and mushy and leaves me wondering how the Father, Son and Spirit work together as the line from Jesus to God leaves no room for the others. Oneness theology has infused these songs and for a church that claims allegiance, loosely, to Trinitarian doctrine, it has entered unaware. 

We are either Trinitarian or we are not. I say this not to say theology must reach a point where it is static but in my reading of church history and the writings of the church fathers this terrain has already been covered. We are either reverting to those times of turmoil, often violent and in need of intervention, or we are returning to the 'original' church a la the mythical "Acts church." But we are not in new territory. 

I take the long road to get to my point: we must understand how the church evolved and acknowledge the trail blazed by these early fathers to get us where we are now. The church was, by and large, united around the Father, Son and Spirit but the lack of theological concreteness led to a splintered church across the world. Perhaps this is ok and should be accepted. But can the church stand without a common theological vision? Or does it fade into the landscape as Christianity has been doing over the past several hundred years?

The Journey Continues...

Have been relatively quiet here but highly active in the my real life both with the pen and in activity.

Have progressed further and further into the Eastern Orthodox stream. Much like the Dao was my entry into the Way and was a 'natural' fit I have found that the struggles I have found fitting within modern day non-denominational, Western (i.e. American) Christianity pushed me ever further not away from Christianity but more toward what is 'natural' in my spiritual life which happens to align, in many ways, with Orthodox thought. At least in terms of the written word.

I've not participated in the actual service of anything Eastern Orthodox but with some modern day theologians of the Orthodox church, most notably Vladimir Lossky and Olivier Clement's magnum opus The Roots Of Christian Mysticism, I have found more peace and, paradoxically, more 'divine' restlessness in pursuit of this truth.

If you saw my book shelf and how it has thinned over the years with a more specialized focus you'd understand. The pivotal guides of my journey still remain, heavily penciled and rabbit-eared, but the current lot is ever more specific. 

In the dance I do in seeking meaning I - finally! - stumbled across a one year reading plan for the Septuagint. I have the Orthodox Study Bible and the EOB: New Testament as my text. The OSB is good for its translation of the Hebrew Bible though it is basically the KJV in the New Testament and quite patronizing and irritatingly like my first Bible which was the NIV which I grew to detest over the years in its obviousness approach not to truth but to indoctrination.

The EOB, on the other hand, is refreshing as it does not shun textual criticism. With a lexicon in hand and my NASB on the side I feel quite enriched in getting a deeper understanding of the Word. My pursuit of knowledge is never static. Never. I question, and question, and question any and all things I read both questioning my understanding but also questioning the deeper history of what is often lost in the 'static' pages of the written word. Call this the Holy Spirit if you will.

The pursuit is not to discredit, though in my early days this was my motive, but to get understanding. If God is truly a mystery, this questioning should never end. The quest is not to conform to a particular theology or doctrine or to fully understand with my mind. 

The quest is to further open my mind to the mystery. The words of the Dao, my translation, resonate: "the deeper you go, the deeper you go." 

Tolerance Is Not A Christian Virture

“We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty — these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it’s never an end itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil. Likewise, democratic pluralism does not mean that Catholics should be quiet in public about serious moral issues because of some misguided sense of good manners. A healthy democracy requires vigorous moral debate to survive. Real pluralism demands that people of strong beliefs will advance their convictions in the public square — peacefully, legally and respectfully, but energetically and without embarrassment. Anything less is bad citizenship and a form of theft from the public conversation.” – Archbishop Charles Chaput

Only In Youngstown

Zoom in.

Really do love the city in which I live.

Have been writing more, we'll see what ends up here.

School shootings and bullying

I don't know that this will really ever get read but I feel the need to get it out.

I used to write stories - long stories - about shooting up my school.  They were detailed, graphic, and person specific.

In hindsight, I can tell you exactly why.  I suffered sexual abuse at a very young age.  From that moment on everything changed.  My innocence was lost.  Internalizing everything, I withdrew, became angry, bitter, depressed.

And my defense was sarcasm, pornography, alcohol and, eventually, drug abuse.  

I internalized everything deeper and deeper.  But the rage was there and the rage continued to build. 

Fortunately I have the ability to put my thoughts and feeling into words on a page.  So I did.  And I wrote stories.  Lots of stories.  Many were "pornographic" in nature (fueled mostly by the Penthouse forum and Cinemax friday nights) but many were fantasies of mass murders at my school.

Were I alive today and those stories to be found, I might find myself in the company of those deemed troubled children.

I was troubled, certainly.  I know how to shoot guns.  I had access to them (though not the arsenal than many troubled youngsters have today).  

I was bullied.  Granted, my sarcasm didn't help matters.  But I was picked on.  Not excessively, not horribly, but enough.  And it perpetuated the loathing, loneliness and rage.

I listened to "angry" music (heavy metal, though tame by today's standards) and would immerse myself in the world of music.  Rock concerts, a loud stereo, freedom from having my own car (having worked summers to sustain it).  

Every chance I got I would take long drives into the night.

I had a loving family, a good family and wanted for nothing.  There was friction there but nothing out of the ordinary, the typical drama between a strong father and a son trying to find his way.

So I had escapes.  But the struggle with addictions would last well into my thirties and would leave me emotionally damaged and still in the process of healing.  

Had I channeled my energy into the addiction of 'violence' I may have taken a different route.  I may not have channeled my anger inwards and abused myself, I may have channeled it externally and harmed others.

So I understand, to a point, what drives someone over the edge.

But would I have gone beyond the page and actually done it?  Obviously, I didn't.  

But could I have?  I really think it possible.

This is not a sob story.  Far from it.  It's a very present reality and, sadly, there really are no easy solutions and will most likely continue unabated until we get to the root cause of our ailments.

Laws won't fix anything; more guns won't fix anything.

Only the Truth sets an individual on the road to freedom.  

If you've read my blog I think you'll get a good idea of where I find that Truth.

If not, hit me up.

Beastie Boys - Bodhisattva Vow

Consider "Fight For Your Right (To Party)" and this track. I saw them in concert on their Licensed To Ill tour back in 1987. Hard to believe it's been over 25 years. They grew up and many folks missed it. Never underestimate the unifying power of music. 

Here are the lyrics to this track: 

As I develop the awakening mind I praise the buddha as they shine
I bow before you as I travel my path to join your ranks,
I make my full time task
For the sake of all beings I seek
The enlighted mind that I know I'll reap
Respect to shantideva and all the others
Who brought down the darma for sisters and brothers
I give thanks for this world as a place to learn
And for this human body that I know I've earned
And my deepest thanks to all sentient beings
For without them there would be no place to learn what I'm seeing
There's nothing here that's not been said before
But I put it down now so I'll be sure
To solidify my own views and I'll be glad if it helps
Anyone else out too

yrics from: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/beastie+boys/bodhisattva+vow_10025267.html ]
If others disrespect me or give me flack
I'll stop and think before I react
Knowing that they're going through insecure stages
I'll take the opportunity to exercise patience
I'll see it as a chance to help the other person
Nip it in the bud before it can worsen
A change for me to be strong and sure
As I think on the buddhas who have come before
As I praise and respect the good they've done
Knowing only love can conquer in every situation
We need other people in order to create
The circumstances for the learning that we're here to generate
Situations that bring up our deepest fears
So we can work to release them until they're cleared
Therefore, it only makes sense
To thank our enemies despite their intent


The bodhisattva path is one of power and strength
A strength from within to go the length
Seeing others are as important as myself
I strive for a happiness of mental wealth
With the interconnectedness that we share as one
Every action that we take affects everyone
So in deciding for what a situation calls
There is a path for the good for all
I try to make my every action for that highest good
With the altruistic wish to achive buddhahood
So I pledge here before everyone who's listening
To try to make my every action for the good of all beings
For the rest of my lifetimes and even beyond
I vow to do my best to do no harm
And in times of doubt I can think on the dharma
And the enlightened ones who've graduated samsara